ReviewThe International journal on drug policy2021
Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction.
Review in The International journal on drug policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Further Insights Into the Metabolism of LGD-4033 in Human Urine. Part 2. A New Minor Metabolite With Antagonistic Activity on the Androgen Receptor Can Indicate Recent Substance Intake.Drug testing and analysis · 2026Article
- The IPEDs assemblage: Tracing the entanglements of biomedicine, technology, enhancement and anti-doping policies in sport and society.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2026Article
- The Enhanced Games: a timely injection for the International Olympic Committee.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Bodybuilding: A Comprehensive Review of Performance-Enhancing Substance Use and Public Health Implications.Cureus · 2023Review
- The Meaning of "Clean" in Anti-doping Education and Decision Making: Moving Toward Integrity and Conceptual Clarity.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doping and the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are often considered and discussed as a separate issue from other types of substance use, by sporting bodies, politicians, the media, and athletes who use drugs themselves. However, perceptions and understandings of substance use in the sport and fitness world are directly related to those of substance use in the non-sport world. One way the gap between sport and non-sport substance use research can be bridged is to consider sport risk and enabling environments. Similar to non-sport contexts and drug use, it is important to analyse the environments in which doping occurs. This approach allows us to examine the dynamic interplay between risk and enabling factors, as the enabling environment shifts in response to changes produced in the risk environment, and vice versa. There are models of sport environments that have proven effective at both enabling doping by athletes and reducing harms to athletes: systematic doping. This article will use secondary literature in order to review and analyse known cases of systematic doping through the risk and enabling environment frameworks. We argue that these systems responded to anti-doping in ways that protected athletes from the risk factors established by anti-doping policy and that athletes suffered most when these systems were revealed, exposing athletes to the full range of doping harms. Further, we argue that risks within these systems (i.e. extortion, bullying) resulted from the broader prohibitive sport environment that forces doping underground and allows such abuses to occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.